• Keynotes
• Management Programs
• Project Management Programs
• Consulting

• NCS Radio: Construction 3.0 Audio Files
• Garrison Report: Monthly Newsletter Signup
• Ted’s Blog: Discussing critical industry issues

People often think of trust as a soft social virtue, but it is way more than that. Stephen M. R. Covey wrote in Speed of Trust that trust is “a hard economic driver that makes organizations more profitable.” In an NCS Radio interview, he stated that when trust is lost, projects slow down and costs increase. He added that the opposite is also true. When trust develops projects speed up and costs go down.

However, Covey isn’t the only expert hammering away at trust. Business strategist Russell White stated in an NCS Radio interview that today contractors need to build a legacy of trust. You may ask, Why a legacy? White’s answer was that today’s society is highly skeptical. The old model where people trusted people until they had reason to not trust them doesn’t apply any longer. Today people tend to be wary of others until trust is earned. With existing clients you can earn their trust by your direct actions with them, but how do you get past the front door with a new client? The answer is by building a legacy of trust. This allows previous clients to spread good comments about you.

White went on to explain that you build this trust by being transparent and seeking feedback. You must be up front with clients to avoid any unexpected surprises that destroy trust.

Well, that sounds like great theory, but does it really work in the construction trenches? The last couple of months I’ve focused on the best value approach advocated by Professor Dean Kashiwagi. So what does he say about this?

Kashiwagi argues that you shouldn’t award work based on trust or relationships. So you think he disagrees? Well, I think you would be wrong. What we have is a difference in language, not a different intent. What Kashiwagi means when he says you shouldn’t award work based on relationships is you shouldn’t award work to someone because you like him, play golf with him or have any other social relationship with him. But obviously if you are working with someone to deliver maximum value, you have a relationship of professional collaboration. This is the relationship that both Covey and White are talking about, not a social relationship.

Kashiwagi has also said you shouldn’t award work based on trust. This is probably one of the most difficult ideas to get one’s head around. Kashiwagi is talking about blind trust. In other words, trust should not be based on the belief that you think the contractor can deliver the desired result. He argues that selection should be based on what he calls dominant proof, or proof that all thinking people can understand and agree with. In Kashiwagi’s language no decision is necessary because the answer is obvious. You don’t have to trust the person because you know without doubt he can perform. In essence, the selection is based on fact, not trust. However, the trust that Covey and White are discussing is not blind trust either, but dominant proof of past performance. This is what White meant by a legacy of trust, an unquestionable track record of past performance. Despite the difference in language, White’s and Covey’s intents are no different than the Performance Information Procurement System (PIPS), where contractors are required to document their past performance, except that PIPS has a formal documentation process.

When you know someone is an expert, you know that person can perform. In Kashiwagi’s language, if you know something, it doesn’t require trust. Covey and White expressed a similar process but used the word trust. The point of this report is to point out that a difference in the language doesn’t mean a difference in the intent. All three men advocated a similar process, namely perform, document your performance, be transparent, be up front, avoid surprising the client and do what you say you will do. If do you those things, clients will trust you and have confidence that you can perform, not because you are a friend, but because you have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that you will perform.